1. Field of the Invention
This disclosure relates to the field of digital media, and more specifically to listing and selecting digital media from multiple content providers and multiple content sources for multiple devices.
2. Background
As the Internet has expanded and bandwidth to homes increased, a demand for digital media, and especially video content, has grown. YouTube developed into a platform for sharing video. Traditional television networks began streaming content via the Internet. Video rental agencies, such as Blockbuster, began offering online access to content. With the expansion of video capabilities and bandwidth to mobile devices like smartphones, demand for digital media continues to grow. Many solutions have developed, driven mainly by each content provider producing ways to access its content, and devices developing device-specific interfaces to access content.
In addition to devices for accessing content, there are also many devices for sending digital media to a television. Examples of such devices include AppleTV, Boxee Box, Logitech Revue, Roku, and TiVo Premiere. Yet each different device supports access to video from different sets of content providers. For example, AppleTV supports video from Netflix, iTunes, and YouTube. Boxee Box supports video from YouTube, ABC.com, FOX.com, NBC.com, CBS.com, MLB.com, and soon will add support for Netflix. Logitech Revue supports video from Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand (VoD), iTunes, and YouTube. Roku supports video from Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon VoD, iTunes, and MLB.com. TiVo Premier supports video from Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon VoD, and YouTube. Some televisions have built-in support for access to video in a manner similar to these devices.
Other devices for accessing content, such as Verizon FiOS DVRs, may access specific and singular video sources, such as Verizon FiOS OnDemand. Computer desktops or laptops may have full access to all video sources. Other computing devices, including mobile devices such as mobile phones or iPads, may have alternative support. The iPad, for example, has browser-based access to the web but no Adobe Flash support. Video access is available from the iPad through iTunes, for example, but not through Amazon VoD.
This creates a dilemma for users who have many devices for accessing different subsets of video from different content providers. Further complicating matters, the interfaces for accessing content are highly controlled by the content providers. Access to content is typically driven through hierarchical menus populated based on information feeds provided by the content providers. On a device that provides access to multiple content providers, a user must first select a content provider, rather than browsing by type of content. After selecting the content provider, further categories are defined and controlled by the content provider. Thus, a show available from multiple content providers may be categorized differently—such as under “Family” from one content provider, “Comedy” from another content provider, “HD” from a third content provider, and “F” from a fourth content provider.
Typed searches may find the same show from all content providers, yet still separate from each other. For example, searching for “Family Guy” may produce separate results—“Family Guy” through Netflix, “Family Guy” through Amazon VoD, and “Family Guy” through Hulu. Another device might instead return “Family Guy” through Fox.com. Additionally, the search might not find all results due to inconsistencies between metadata kept by each provider. Although the same exact content may be available from multiple providers, the metadata kept often differs between providers or is incomplete. For example:                Titles are not unique. There are over 20 different movies titled “Alice in Wonderland.” There are three different TV series titled “Top Gear”.        Release years are not distinctive. Some sources list the theater release date, others the DVD release date, others the online release date, and others provide no date at all.        Descriptions vary greatly. Different providers often have completely different descriptions for the same movie.        Episode numbers are not distinctive. Some series, such as news programs, have no episode numbers. Sometimes, episode numbers are repeated. For example, “Dancing with the Stars Week 7” and “Dancing with the Stars Week 7 Results” are two distinct episodes, but might both be listed as season 5 episode 7.        Often there are different versions available. Sometimes, it is a simple “Director's Cut” or “Unrated Version.” Other times, the durations, release years, and even titles will vary. “Star Wars” released in 1977 is the same movie as “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” released in 1997.        Remakes and rereleases are very hard to distinguish. For example, “Bladerunner,” released in 1982, with a duration of 113 minutes, is a special version of the movie “Bladerunner,” released in 2007, with a duration of 117 minutes. On the other hand, “Ocean's Eleven,” released in 1960, with a duration of 127 minutes, is not the same movie as “Ocean's Eleven,” released in 2001, with a duration of 117 minutes. In both cases, the descriptions between the versions are similar.        Data is often wrong. Its common for episode numbers, season numbers, release years, and other data to be just plain incorrect. Misspellings are very common.        Formatting is often inconsistent. “The Fifth Element” and “The 5th Element” are both correct, but different. “Star Trek 4” and “Star Trek IV” are both correct as well.        Inconsistent taxonomies. Each provider uses a different set of genres and keywords to describe their content; “Drama,” “Afro-Pop,” “Romance,” etc.        
Selecting a specific content provider from the results may reduce this problem of metadata consistency, but limits the results to those available through that specific content provider. From the standpoint of a content provider, such a design is desirable because it keeps users using only one content provider's content. Each content provider wants to keep users within the content provider's available content, as it is access to such content that drives profits for each individual content provider. Device manufacturers need agreements with content providers in order to have access to content, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), and encryption specific to each content provider. Thus (also from the standpoint of a device manufacturer) such a design is desirable because it keeps content providers happy and willing to work with the device manufacturer. This is also the simplest solution for device manufacturers, as device manufacturers can take content information directly from each content provider and display the content information without introducing further complexities.
In addition to sorting available content by content provider, available content listings are inherently linked to the viewing device. For example, a network-connected TV or DVR lists content viewable on that device. As the focus of devices is accessibility within that device to drive future device sales, the incentive is to display only content accessible and displayable on that device.
This creates an array of products which do not fully cross-integrate. No solution provides a platform that (1) lists available media across different content providers; (2) groups the media based on the end product information, rather than source feed structure; (3) lists media availability across all devices; and (4) allows control and selection from one device of any available media to play back on any available device. Furthermore, no ability exists for a content provider to program in business rules regarding the proffered choice of media for a user based on their own business desires.